As Morrison said, we live the Indo-Pacific, not Asia-Pacific. The fixation on Asia fizzled out with Keating. Communist China and its threatening behaviour should be enough to put anyone off Asia.

Two things:

One: the reliability of the US, which is always in question. On that one, observe the convoluted engagement between the US and Israel through time.
And our own experiences in 1943 attempting to convince the US of any strategic purpose enough with Australia, to warrant US action as our defensive back-up.
That outcome was almost entirely as luck would have it.

Two:
Politicians with guts.

Even on the superficial level, China is well advanced in their “soft” attack on the purse strings.
This one is the battle already lost before the war begins.
China has controlling interests in most Australian port facilities.
When?? Will our political elite, so accustomed to sucking it up to China, get into step with each other and show some leadership that requires real decisive action outside of attempting to buy their way out of trouble, and falling over themselves to be scorched by wily US carpet baggers, selling peace to the panicked as weapons of war?

Dan

Yes, and needed as never before! And for nations that like us, want the defence model of a free lunch! Even more so! We are the country with the least self-sufficiency/self-reliance in the developed world and because of some of the most absurd and asinine decisions by taxpayer-funded decision-makers, always ready to genuflect to political movements like the peace freak greens! And other disarmament loony tunes who apparently think, if we ask nicely then the lunatic strong men of editorial regimes will leave us and our massive resources alone! Just as they did in Tibet and the Crimea just to name a couple of recent examples.

And why we are now in those crosshairs and totally unprepared to fight! We confront two choices in defence of the realm. To die on your feet fighting for your rights and freedom or on your knees begging for it?

As the record shows those that begged to got zilch, those that fought, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc. could not be subdued or possessed by the invading hordes. Nor the mightiest military powers in the world!

Those that begged like a poor Tibet got sand kicked in their faces and folk disappeared if they rebelled! Or more of the same if they protested over their resources being purloined!

Yes, we are currently, much too reliant on Uncle sam for far too much! And need to step up with hardware nen and material that are all resourced locally! Along with Australian defence plans that would make the invader spend way too much for what they might ever gain!

And if those plans do not include nuclear weapons and nuclear power and nuclear power maritime resources! Then get busy busy learning Mandarin and how to bow, scrap and kowtow!

As for any f the above? Remember it is far easier to beg forgiveness than permission.
Alan B.

Alan B

Most of what you say is selective bluster, which defies the reality of the moment.

The enemy is already inside the walls. And that is where we need politicians with guts to confront the simple imperative of dealing with it.

Chinese have always been a socially destabilising force to be reckoned with. Denying that fact for example, that the white Australia policy was installed to quell dissent in the population, aimed squarely at Chinese residents, quick to take what wasn’t theirs.

Now, and for the foolish, Chinese are divided into good ones and bad ones by politicians, for the sake of property price stability and furthering immigration of wealthy (good) Chinese, supporting the strategy of the politicians own personal wealth creation by the same fawning historic.

That’d be closer the truth than your bluster.

Dan

Chris,

I basically agree with the points you've raised except on one fundamental issue.....THE fundamental issue.

It is very true that the US economy and military remain the most formidable in the world and most certainly in the western world. But that's on paper.

It only matters if the US leadership and the US military leadership are willing and capable of using that force to defend fundamental principles and to defend and support allies. I have significant reservations about that. The US is currently led by the most incompetent team in living memory. Making the Carter regime look good is hardly an achievement. Even worse the US military is led by people who haven't won a war in 30 years and are antagonistic to the use of the force they control.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Milley is more interested in indoctrinating his subordinates with Critical Race Theory than in training for the next conflict. He is reported as having gone behind the commander-in-chief's back to collaborate with the Chinese. He led the debacle that was the abject retreat from Kabul. Yet he is feted by those who currently rule the US.

At the same time, Resident Biden's regime goes from one policy disaster to the next. Whatismore, given what we know about Joe and his son's financial ties to China and Russia and the bribes that flowed, one is left wondering just how committed Biden is to opposing what are now the US's clear foes.

The US has been chased out of Afghanistan. They were chased out of the Black Sea. They asked for permission to establish bases in other central Asian countries and, when Putin denied that permission, meekly acceded. They allowed the Nord Stream II natural gas pipeline to proceed for no obvious reason or benefit to anyone other than Putin.

/cont

/ cont

It can be argued, and I'd tend to agree, that this might be a mere blip and that the US will come roaring back as the backbone and cornerstone to western civilisation. But I also have my reservations. The ruling elite in the US (Democrats, establishment Republicans and the bureaucracy, Big Tech) came together to destroy the presidency of an outsider. The deplorables have been put in their place. I don't see any indications that they intend to allow them to rise again.

The US is currently led by people who are prepared to sacrifice US power outside the country so long as they retain power inside the country. It is led by people who no longer believe in the American Dream.

If all that changes in 2024, then good. We can all re-calibrate. But I have my doubts.

The next war will be won in space, not in the ocean depths. The subs are symbols, not effective deterrents...not now, not in 2050. Australia has made a $90billion announcement that we are all-in on the defence of western civilisation. But that's foolhardy when we remain unsure if the US is similarly all-in.

Thanks for the comments.

mhaze, yes the million dollar question is whether the US will indeed back up its rhetoric.

I suppose the south china sea and taiwan will be the crucial tests, should the mad CCP decides to test the waters through a military conflict.

But I think the resistance may well succeed in terms of military resistance, widespread condemnation from most countries, and indeed the last possibility of economic retaliation albeit the latter will devastate the international economy.

But eventually something must give if the west is to counter the CCP, or remove itself from the world more influenced by the CCP.

“... and China's activities in Africa, which includes China having a military base in Djibouti.”

China’s one and only foreign military base. The US has more than 750 military bases in over 70 countries. It has 29 in Africa. The US is the military predator, not China. The AUKUS alliance will just draw us further into US aggression around the world and in particular against China.

Bronwyn,

You may be able to enlighten us why NATO and the G-7, the US, and many countries are very concerned about the CCP.

Are they all wrong, or do they all know that a world influenced by the CCP is set back for humanity.

I will go with the latter. I am confident that most of the world will agree, albeit many will be happy to take Chinese money

"China’s one and only foreign military base."

That's very true....if you ignore all the military bases in Tibet and the South China Sea. But I guess the Chinese apologists will consider those areas to be part of China because the CCP says so.





"But eventually something must give if the west is to counter the CCP, or remove itself from the world more influenced by the CCP."

Well that is my point. The current US leadership is disinclined to counter the CCP and has lost faith in western civilisation. They think that the US is irretrievably evil with its entire history revolving around slavery and exploitation of non-whites. That's what CRT is about and they have fully bought and absorbed it. Worse, they now force it on the next generation over the heads of parents.

You cannot defend a way of life you don't believe in. You cannot confront a regime as evil if you think your own country is similarly evil. I fear Trump and Trumpism was the last throw of the dice for the US and the west.

For Australia, if that is true (and we'll know one way or the other by 2024) we have to work out where we fit in a Chinese dominated world. China is offering vassal status. I don't think we can accept that.

But we might be able to wrangle a position of non-threatening trading post on the outskirts of the Chinese hegemony, useful for trade and not worth the effort of conquering. Let's say a client state to the world hegemon

Chris

“You may be able to enlighten us why NATO and the G-7, the US, and many countries are very concerned about the CCP.’

NATO and the G7 are both dominated by the US so of course they’re singing the US tune on China. They represent a mere thirty out of around 200 countries in the world. The majority of the world’s nations refuse to buy into the US-led demonization of China. At least 130 have signed up to be part of China’s Belt and Road initiative. They welcome its trade and investment opportunities and appreciate the co-operative collaboration and cultural engagement with China and the other nations involved.

The US has an obsessive and irrational hatred and fear of China, which it considers a threat to its self-appointed role as the world’s hegemon. It’s been threatening and attempting to contain China for many years. For most of that time, China has patiently avoiding taking the bait, but recently, it has become more assertive. It is finally standing up to the US after more than a decade of ever-increasing provocation. It will defend its sovereignty, but, unlike the US, it will not interfere in the sovereignty of other nations.

China is no threat to Australia, unless we choose to make it an enemy, which unfortunately, the Morrison government seems stupidly hellbent on doing.

Early in this debate the comment was made that we are in the Indo Pacific area.
Quite true and we are on the other side of the world from Asia.
Here is a surprise for most of you;
Indonesia, Timor, and the Philippines are not in Asia.
They are like us in Oceana.
Too many have been brainwashed in their schools by Mercadors Projection
map on their school walls. I bet you never noticed that the vertical
size of the scale in the Southern Hemisphere is smaller than the North.
Goes to show how dangerous school brainwashing can be.
I hope you read Jo Novas blog noted on this site.
It has a logical explanation for China's push for coal power but wants
us all to buy their "cheap" wind and solar.
Makes a lot of sense and is a typical Chinese salesman trick.

Bronwyn,

The islands that China has built in the south china sea in the economic zones of other Asian countries are a direct infringement of the sovereignty of those countries. The main result of which is that these countries are shoring up their ties with the US and are arming themselves against further Chinese aggression as are Taiwan and Japan. The AUKUS and Quad alliances are some of the more powerful responses.

Similarly, China's abuse of trade rules is seeing a backlash and China is no longer a trusted partner of pretty much anyone.

Shadowminister

For centuries China quite naturally viewed the oceans around it as exclusive Chinese possessions to be used for fishing and navigation. There wasn't a need for any legal process to claim possession. The Chinese are only now claiming the right of possession that they'd always assumed they had. The US has for years invasively charted and gathered intelligence in Chinese waters. China is only now reaching out and establishing ocean-based footholds as Western powers have always done. Vietnam and the Philippines are in the same position, and yes, some overlapping claims have now developed. These differences are for the countries themselves to negotiate. There's no need for US-led interference. AUKUS and the Quad alliance are nothing more than aggressive bully-boy groupings whose sole intent is to contain China. They will do nothing but militarise and nuclearise the Indo-Pacific. Yes, a few of the region’s nations might be shoring up their ties with the US, but the majority are extremely concerned at the increasing militarisation of their region and in particular the AUKUS plans for nuclear subs.

China has a good record of complying with international trade rules and with any WTO rulings made against it. Most countries, apart from the US, Australia and a few others, have little problem in trading with China. It was Trump in 2018 who began the trade wars between the US and China. It was Australia's fawning to the US and banning Huawei in 2012 which began the unraveling of trade relations between Australia and China. China has responded to trade war provocation. It didn't cause it. And most of the backlash you refer to is being fomented by the US.

Browyn,

By the international laws of the sea that China has signed up to, China has no claim to the waters in the south china sea.

Your statement that there are overlapping claims to be negotiated is pure Chinese propaganda. Are you paid for this BS?

President Xi put it simply; The US is not a sovereign country and
it follows that he also considers all other countries as vassal states.
He gave his grounds for this as China did not attend the Westphalia
Conference in 16th century, China is not bound by that convention that
defines what is a sovereign country.
Therefore all other countries are Vassal states to the Central Kingdom.
Therefore China can apply its own rules everywhere.
This it has proceeded to do.

So as only Chinese rules apply ultimately, it might for convenience
sake go along with others rules, but they are not binding.
It is about time that more publicity is given to this Chinese attitude.

Shadow Minister; are you sure China signed up to the Law of the sea ?
Is there a qualification to any such signing ?
I thought they did not even defend the case in the Hague.
I wonder if there is any extension of the Westphalia convention to
the Law of the Sea ?

Shadowminister

China has a strong claim to the South China Sea. In its own words, “The activities of the Chinese people in the South China Sea date back to over 2,000 years ago. China is the first to have discovered, named, and explored and exploited Nanhai Zhudao and relevant waters, and the first to have exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over them continuously, peacefully and effectively, thus establishing territorial sovereignty and relevant rights and interests in the South China Sea.”

There are definitely areas of overlap between claims made by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines. Rightly or wrongly, all these countries believe they have a natural territorial claim, hence the disputes. The disputes have intensified with population and fishing pressures forcing countries further afield to maintain their catch. One country which has absolutely no claim to this area is the US.

The US military has aggressively violated China’s airspace and coastal waters for many years. It is actively violating the human rights of Indigenous peoples in Guam, Hawai’i, the Marianas, Okinawa, and other pristine islands in the Asia-Pacific. The US’s militarization of these regions is causing mass environmental devastation of sacred ancestral coral reefs and carbon-sequestering forests, while oppressing and harming Indigenous Pacific Islanders through military exercises and accidents, military crime and the poisoning of drinking water. It’s the US, not China, which is the criminal aggressor in the South China Sea.

Bazz

China has signed up to UNCLOS. In its words, “China respects and upholds the freedom of navigation and overflight enjoyed by all states under international law in the South China Sea, and stays ready to work with other coastal states and the international community to ensure the safety of and the unimpeded access to the international shipping lanes in the South China Sea.” The US refuses to sign up to UNCLOS and Australia withdrew from its arbitration mechanism in order to avoid a negative ruling in its maritime boundary dispute with Timor-Leste.

Both the US and Australia thumb their nose at international law when it suits them. Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, the Paris Accord on climate change, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Arms Trade Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty. Biden shows little interest in rejoining most of these. Neither the US or Australia is in a position to criticise China.

China respects the sovereignty of other nations and not unfairly expects other nations to reciprocate. The US repeatedly ignores the sovereignty of other nations. It invades other countries, forces regime change, foments coups, conducts bombing raids and assassinates leaders. China has done none of this. In the words of Xi Jinping, “The Chinese people love peace. We will never seek aggression or expansion, but we have the confidence to defeat all invasions. We will never allow any people, organization or political party to split any part of Chinese territory out of the country at any time, in any form. No one should expect us to swallow the bitter fruit that is harmful to our sovereignty, security or development interests.” This is a perfectly legitimate position for any sovereign nation to take.

Bronwyn, what you say is incorrect.
I have heard the radio transmissions when Australian ships and
aircraft pass near the disputed Islands and Reefs.
One Australian Naval vessel transiting from Vietnam to the Phillipines
was challenged most aggressively and threatened.
The tone and wording used is very aggressive.
The behaviour of their ships and aircraft is very unprofessional when
in close proximity to other vessels and aircraft.
Arrogance is the word that comes to mind.

Bronwyn,

According to UNCLOS, the Islands built by china in the south china sea are not their territory.

Bazz

I have no knowledge of the example you refer to, but guess it’s hardly surprising if the Chinese are increasingly reciprocating with the same aggressive and unprofessional language they’ve more than likely been subjected to by many in the Western military. An Australian naval vessel transiting from Vietnam to the Philippines is in itself a threatening posture. What’s it doing there? Why are US, UK and Australian warships patrolling Chinese coastal waters? This is what gets up the nose of the Chinese and very understandably. If the roles were reversed, the US wouldn’t stand for it. The Chinese ships would be bombed first and questions asked later.

Shadowminister

UNCLOS has made one ruling in the South China Sea disputes, that of the 2016 Philippines V China ruling. The ruling greatly favoured the Philippines’ claims, though hardly surprising, with the expert testimony being very much one-sided, due to China choosing not to participate in proceedings. The tribunal did not rule on the ownership of the islands in question. I’m not sure whether or not this includes some or all of China’s land reclamations. I concede there are environmental problems with these land reclamations, as there are with those carried out by the US. I'm totally against the increasing militarisation of the area, by both the US and China. It wouldn't be happening, however, if it wasn't for the West's aggressive policing of a part of the world it has no natural claim to.

Bronwyn, the Australian ship passed through Phillipine coastal zone
and Phillipine teritorial waters. That was what the Chinese objected
to and the Autralian transmissions have not been in an angry tone
when they explain they are in international waters on a normal passage.
I only once heard a US aircraft respond and it was in a flat monosyble
response.
The Australian aircraft just explain they are in international airspace.
As far as I can tell except for the Timor situation all other places
are treated as per treaty. Even Timor will, or has it already, sorted?

The Chinese should be careful, because when you threaten consequences
you need to be careful no one misinterpenetrates your intent and responds.

Bronwyn,

You are clearly a shill for the Chinese. Here are some facts you might want to chew on:

1 The reason that the Chinese boycotted the tribunal is that they knew that they would lose as the international law of the sea is crystal clear on the issue. Not attending a court case does not invalidate its findings.
2 According to the international law of the sea and the tribunal artificial constructs in the ocean are not considered a new territory and as such do not confer any territorial rights on the Chinese. If anything they are the territory of the Philipines etc.

If anything the US has been demilitarizing in the pacific with the withdrawal of bases in the area. The Chinese militarization of the artificial islands and sinking of local fishing boats is clear aggression to which everyone is responding.

The result is that China is largely without friends with all its neighbours arming themselves against China.

My recollection;
"This is the Chinese Navy. The foreign aircraft must depart this area immediately !
For failure to comply you will be responsible for the consequences." (in an aggressive tone of voice)
The reply by both US and Australian ships & aircraft seem to be
identical eg.
"This is a US Air Force aircraft (or similar) I am in international
waters(or airspace) on a legal passage."
Interesting that the tone is manner of factual. Not high pitched etc.

Obviously the two US & Aus are careful of the evidence they leave behind.
The Chinese are openly aggressive and leave a deniable suggestion of action to follow if you do not comply.
This leaves it open for them to attack an aircraft or ship and say
you were warned, while being able to say we didn't threaten with attack.
A classic both way bet.
Note tracking with a missile radar is a direct threat as I understand it.
However it becomes risky when say a German or other ship is challemged.
What is the quality of the Chinese German speach.
The commander of a German ship may misunderstand and fire in
response to a perceived threat.
EU naval ships probably, but I have not heard them, respond like US.
The new UK aircraft carrier is/was due to pass through the Sth China Sea.

Bazz and Shadowminister

Well, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. Appreciate the respectful tone, Bazz ... Shadowminister still has a way to go! I am not a shill for anyone. I’m anglo-Australian. I’ve never been to China and I’ve had no direct personal contact with any Chinese people. Not that I need to justify myself to you or to anyone else. I’ve already done it once on this site which should be more than enough. Many well-educated and eminent Australians are likewise concerned at the Sinophobia in this country and the provocative and dangerous talking-up of war with China. And BTW, every time you resort to personal attack, you just further destroy the credibility of the points you’re attempting to make. Your argument should stand on its own merits without being propped up by insult.

The US is certainly not demilitarising in the Indo Pacific ... not sure where that flight of fancy came from. Perhaps you could provide some evidence. Yes, the US has shut down some bases ... in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia ... but definitely not in the Indo-Pacific. They already have around 400 military bases surrounding China and plan to build more on a number of Pacific islands and now with AUKUS will expand their military arsenal on Australian soil. They’re artificially reclaiming land on Okinawa and despite strong local opposition continue to impose a massive military base on a country which until recently had a widely-supported pacifist foreign policy. China is not without friends. In fact it has far more friends than enemies. Western countries comprise 12% of the world’s population. Very few of the remaining 88% have any real issue with China.

Your fear and loathing of all things Chinese is hateful and irrational. You’ve been brainwashed by US intelligence and the mainstream media which parrots the line intelligence feeds to it with very little application of any decent critique and analysis. You need to start reading some independent media and work on developing a more nuanced and balanced view of the world.

Bronwyn,

You are entitled to your opinions but the facts disagree with them.

China friends don't include:
India,
Japan,
Philipines,
Malaysia,
Vietnam
Thailand,
Indonesia,
Brunei.

The US closed its Clark base in the Philipines.

I think a lot of neighbours are not necessarily against the decline of a Western superpower, but they fear more the rise of authoritarian China.

Even Singapore, which sits on the fence, have a fear of what China would do to undermine the present rules of international trade as most know that China is more mercantile than the alternative.